Law enforcement officers may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to effect an arrest or protect themselves (or others) from imminent harm. When using firearms, they should have specific targets and not engage in "cover fire" or "fire for effect" tactics commonly used by military personnel.

However unlike "Rules of engagement" which is a term typically used by military units in foreign lands, often to describe guidelines for when military personnel may direct or return fire to a target. It is not a fitting phrase to describe law enforcement / citizen interaction. That said more and more we are seeing these rules applied to domestic engagements that people are being seen as obstacles and targets not citizens and suspects.

If an attacker is still approaching after two or three rounds you might want to consider emptying your magazine so they don't take it off you and shoot you.

For the opportunist mugger etc, the presence of a gun might be enough to deter them. Possibly limit yourself to 3 - 5 rounds. This will look a lot less like you were enjoying it, and more remorseful than shooting someone 16 times, and leave less ammo for them to turn on you should you be disarmed.

I'm not allowed to carry as I am not a citizen, but after pulling a can of mace on two people who tried their luck one New Years Eve, they turned away and ran.

I don't know - I've never been in a gunfight.
A boss/colleague who was stationed in Korea said he came face to face with a North Korean soldier at the DMZ, said they both drew simultaneously and emptied their mags at each other. No one was hit. His lesson to me was, you have no idea of the effect of adrenaline.

If fist fights are any indication, I never stopped punching/kicking until I was pulled off or my opponent was clearly lights out. Same with ones I lost. Once adrenaline kicked in, my presence of mind was not that good.

IMO officer Jason Van Dyke probably decided to air out Mr. McDonald before he even put the car in park. They might have even known each other from previous encounters; at any rate, don't think that incident is a very good example of "defensive shooting". It looks more like, "I'm sick of your idiot behavior" shooting, instead. Time may tell once they get to court.

It's generally expected that very few defenders will shoot just one round and stop to see what may happen next. On the other hand, I don't know of many who've just kept going until empty.

I would think that the germane question would focus on whether the first shots were justified or not. Everything after that would be a matter of degree.
The prosecutors may be inclined to infer intent by the quantity of shots fired while the defense could counter with adrenalin and fear for your life.
As always "the truth" winds up being whatever the jury and judge think it is.

I'd think dragging around a fold up lawn chair and forty thirty round Glock mags would be bad form just on the face of it. Premeditated "abuse of a corpse" and all that? but everyone needs a hobby.
maybe just pop the deserving soul in the nog?

Nobody seems to be able to answer your question,which is good. That ,in my mind would mean that 'we' don't unload into perps that often.
Have you ever read about someone,a citizen, unloading their weapon into a bad guy? I can't recall any stories. And y'all know that would be a headline
And I'm gunna guess the ones who said they would shoot until the body stopped twitching have never been in combat or shot someone. I haven't heard many combat vets talk much about how they would kill someone
But it's fun to speculate how bad bubblegum you would be in that situation huh?
But I digress.
There is another story that was on here a years or 2 ago about a off duty cop working at a mall that saw the hits on the guy and he didn't go down till the bad guy got close enough to pull him in for 2 or 3 head shots.
That cop was shot in the face on the first shot and I think 4 more times in the legs and body?

I watched the video and I don't believe the officer did anything wrong. With the call they received and the perceived threat of the suspect at close proximity, his actions should be within the law.

21ft. He was running toward them then kinda ran by. How fast could he have turned and closed that vary small gap between them?
Pretty darn fast.
With the suspect in his state of mind, what would happen if he was running towards other people?
LEOs have a duty to protect themselves, and the protect the public.

I'm not losing any sleep because a violent person acted stupid and aggressive towards police was shot and killed.

Now the other shooting of the guy and his mom. I didn't get the full details, but it doesn't look good.

Welcome to our community

As the center of our organization, this website provides a place for Northwest gun owners to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Sign up now to participate, it's completely free and takes only a few moments.

About Us

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.